Trio used to boast on its website of 1.1 billion under management. When I wrote the letter to regulators I believed that boast - indeed it was the 1.1 billion that prompted me to write it. {I know too many small frauds...)

The 1.1 billion was probably a lie or misrepresentation. After they collapsed the number dropped to 430 million.

The truth is probably about 50-100 higher than that. My guess - about 480 million - but the topline number is not known.

Of that 480 million about 160 will - at my guess - be missing. That could be higher - but about 330 million of assets have been identified. [The larger the top line the more that is missing... but the top line is not known...]

Of that - 118 million - almost all missing thus far (or "heavily impaired) is in the ASF. There are a few other funds (notably ARP Growth) that look impaired too. Those were a surprise to me. They are also sub-vehicles of TRIO.

This is becoming a farce. How do you think investors in Astarra feel knowing that you are throwing around $100,000 when, in your own words, you 'realy have no idea'?

If a bet was put to you in private and you made it public, why would Johnston, who actually has a vested interest in a positive outcome for investors, want to participate? It belittles the efforts he seems to have gone to to track down the funds. Something the ASIC and the administrators have not done.

As for administrators and liquidators, it is in their financial interest to drag this out. Your call of a 'final result will be about 6 months' seems a little naive to me.

John, in short you seem to be delighting in the loss of others.

That's a pretty sad place to be. I am a financial adviser and I have no clients invested with Astarra. It does not prevent me from hoping for a positive outcome for them.

not so obvious to the Financial Planner employees of the Principals of the firms who may not have known their employers had equity in the fund. After all, recommendations are only made after going through the AIOFP 'Filtered Research Committee'. Remember AIOFP membership espouses not being 'compromised by product provider ownership'

If a bet was put to you in private and you made it public, why would Johnston, who actually has a vested interest in a positive outcome for investors, want to participate?

I'm not sure anyone's accused Johnston of being dishonest, and I certainly haven't read any suggestion of that.

The accusation is of naivety. It is a serious accusation in J's case, since implicitly part of his job as a head of an association of financial planners is due diligence. He represents financial planners, and it's better not to represent financial planners who steer client money into funds which have trouble accounting for their assets. No-one wants to represent shonks*, and if his organization represents shonks then it begs a question about the how well it is performing its implicit due diligence role.

If Johnston takes the bet and wins he makes Hempton look like a blustering idiot. He publicly makes it very clear that he's not naive but is quite savvy. Showing that Hempton is a fool would add confidence to the Astarra investors. It also adds to the reputation of his financial planner society. It's very much in Johnston's interest to take the bet if the funds are solvent.

* Not that I'm suggesting that anyone is a shonk, or represents shonks, just that there are many people who would say that a fund who can't explain to an administrator or auditor where its substantial assets are within 3 days, let alone 3 months, deserves to have very serious questions asked of it management.

you haven't given Peter Johnston enough incentive to take your bet. Asking him to put up $100,000 to win $150,000 when it's extremely unlikely that all $118M will be returned to investors only proves that he can afford to lose $100K a lot less than you can.

If you offered him 10 to 1 odds on all $118M being recoverable and allowed him a lower minimum bet such as $1000 then you would truly expose the hypocrisy of his position.

If he isn't willing to risk even $1000 to back his "she'll be right mate, the $118M will turn up, don't you worry about that" public statements, then he'll be exposing his self serving spin in a way that even your average SMH reader will understand completely.

I am an investor within the Astarra Conservative Fund and the marketing used was not for the Astarra Strategic Fund but for the Diversified Funds which had between 1-5% exposure to ASF. You need to get your facts right and stop writing garbage.

In my fund, all assets (minus the ASF) have been acounted for but now PPB are using this fund to pay their way as the RE. I think the PPB fees will hurt a lot more than the ASF (if no money turns up).

John between yourself and Richard Butler all you care is lining your own pockets. Why do you want current investors to contact you? So you can add them to your mailing list and recommend your own products? What are you investigating?

ASIC are investigating and I look forward to knowing their findings when their investigtion has completed instead of reading about yours which most is made up with clever wording used to cover your hide.

General disclaimer

The content contained in this blog represents the opinions of Mr. Hempton. Mr. Hempton may hold either long or short positions in securities of various companies discussed in the blog based upon Mr. Hempton's recommendations. The commentary in this blog in no way constitutes a solicitation of business or investment advice. In fact, it should not be relied upon in making investment decisions, ever. It is intended solely for the entertainment of the reader, and the author. In particular this blog is not directed for investment purposes at US Persons.